It has long been known that a large majority of mass murders in public take place in “gun-free zones,” where it is unlikely that any of the potential victims will be armed and capable of returning fire.
The Bloomberg faction of the gun prohibitionist movement has taken exception to this. They conflate gangs shooting members of other gangs on the street with mass murders in public. They treat the psycho who murders multiple family members in a home as equivalent to the mass murder of random strangers in public. If the mass murderer strikes in a place where the whole community is a de facto gun-free zone, they figure it doesn’t count because a judge, movie star, or Bloomberg bodyguard with a carry permit impossible for ordinary citizens to acquire might have been there.
Here, a masterful counterpoint to that and a clear picture of the reality, from our friend Professor John Lott at the Crime Prevention Research Center.
Sadly, facts don’t matter to those who are unwilling or unable to believe them.
Is it possible that unconstitutional gun laws are racist? I think our current carry laws were written between 1870 and 1920. Why didn’t the NRA protest against those laws? My guess is that the laws were written to sound as though they applied to everyone, but “wink, wink” they were only applied to black men. Wouldn’t white men living in those times complain that carry laws were an infringement on the Second Amendment? If they were told that those laws would only be applied to blacks, that may have quieted the whites down. Then the generation that created those laws died off, and others came along, looked at the laws, and applied them to everyone. Since there wasn’t much crime then, just gangsters killing gangsters, Americans probably figured they no longer had a need to carry a gun.
If we shouted, “GUN LAWS ARE RACIST” we might make a little progress. Am I being too optimistic? How did those gun laws get on the books without opposition?
It is people like yourself and John Lott who help keep me sane. In my ultra-blue, illegal alien “sister city”, Ivy League hometown I feel adrift behind enemy lines. Reading the wisdom and rational thought in these pages and the comments left herein by my fellow gun nuts and kindred spirits do keep me from reaching for another kind of spirits just to cope with the raw stupidity that passes for discussion of firearms and firearms policy “out there”.
Should any of our paths cross in real life, the first round of said real spirits is on me…and when I open MY pub I might just put one of those Old West peg boards up that say “Hang yer hawglegs here!”
God (continue to) Bless the United States of America.
And another thing…a homophonous reading of the title of this post pretty much says it all, or at least says what you have to be to believe they work.
Another fine link Mas, excellent, most appreciated. Thank you for an interesting read.
P.S. Gun laws ARE racist… Against everyone!
My heart goes out to the officers and bystanders killed and wounded in Dallas last night.
Jaji:
“More On Gun-Free Zones” = “Moron Gun-Free Zones.” Wow! That is hilarious! I wonder if Mas planned it that way. That is brilliant! I can’t stop laughing!
Another statistic that anti-gunner pundits generally “forget” to include with their research is that roughly 2/3rds of all U.S. deaths resulting from firearms are suicides. I believe that figure has remained fairly constant over many years.
I’m pretty middle of the road. NH LTC and about to apply to Mass. It seams we’ve lost the art of nuance somewhere in the discussion. It’s true that a “good guy with a gun” can stop a bad incident, but if you take that to the logical conclusion, if everyone had a firearm, what percent of them would be trained to react appropriately in an a life or death situation? (even with a LTC I’m going to get more training before I actually carry, and that’s after having qualified in the military.) “Combat” situations are totally different from the range. So if everyone in Orlando was armed, who knows what would have happened? However, requiring specific (and potentially costly and time consuming) training to exercise a constitutional right has it’s problems, as well. Bottom line, I think we (the country) pay a price for our 2nd amendment freedoms and should just admit that the protections 2A provides are worth the cost of of the downside.
So as far as Dallas goes, Mas, any thoughts on the PD presence? I just wonder if DPD was perhaps a little lax in the prep…and I mean no disrespect to anyone on the force, as my dad was a 20-year vet (Rookie of the Year in ’66…I still have his Johnny Sides Memorial Smith Model 27). While I don’t belief all cops can be trusted, there’s still a part of me that wants to get most of ’em a fair shake.
I also possess a newspaper photo of my dad and his partner silhouetted atop a downtown building during what he called “anti-sniper” duty during a Nixon visit…this was long after JFK, but the incident was still fresh at DPD. While this week’s “peaceful demonstration” didn’t warrant a security detail on the scale of a presidential visit, I do wonder, as others no doubt have, why rifle rounds from elevation weren’t put on the suspect.
As far as what CCW holders should’ve done in such an instance, I don’t think that’s a realistic question, because as John Farnam would say, they’d have no business at a demonstration like this one in the first place! Wanna guess why?
TXCOMT
@ NH Indi,
Every mechanical object invented by mankind can be misused and, therefore, has a downside. For example, automobiles provide a great benefit with regard to mobility. We pay for it, however, with a death toll on our highways each year. Cameras provide a benefit. They document our lives. They help convey information via photographs. They provide legal documentation. Sometimes they capture beauty that enriches our lives. However, they can also be used for child pornography.
When it comes to firearms, the pre-existing left-wing or right-wing mindset of an individual provides a distorting lens that affects the cost / benefit analysis. A left-wing individual places very little value upon the 2nd Amendment. Many of them will (privately or sometimes even publicly) say that it was a mistake of the founding fathers to even put it into the Constitution. Many left-wingers believe it should be repealed. Witness the many left-wing justices (on the SCOTUS or otherwise) who refuse to accord the 2A the same level of respect as the other Constitutional amendments. They act as if 2nd Amendment means 2nd Class.
If 2A rights hold little or no value in one’s belief system then any benefit at all, no matter how theoretical or slight, is more than enough to justify heavy gun control measures that infringe on 2A rights. To go to Spencer’s point, this is also why they include suicides and, sometimes, even justified homicides in their statistics. From their view, it is appropriate to include them since they are all part (from their point of view) of the downside to firearm ownership.
In contrast, the right-wing world-view does recognize the value of 2A rights. A right-winger does not view the 2A as a “2nd Class” right. Through his lens, the benefits of firearm ownership and 2A rights do outweigh the downsides that flow from the misuse of this particular type of mechanical device.
This is why statistical studies of firearm’s use or rational discussions do not work for the gun control issue. The divide on this issue is too basic. It occurs at the fundamental left-wing / right-wing world-view level. To change a strong left-wingers mind on gun-control, you would need to force him or her to completely re-evaluate his entire belief system. This is why quoting statistics does not change minds on either side of this issue.
A a friend pointed out the other day, our current national leadership seems to be carrying forward the Charles Manson plan for promoting race war. Some of our essentially lawless, so-called “top leaders” are subtly egging on the “active shooters” for all they are worth, which isn’t much, while pretending to wring their hands. Many people in the news media are going along with the conflict promotion in order to undermine the Second Amendment. Exploitation of video footage is taking advantage of some folks’ gullibility and prejudice. You just can’t fool all of the people all the time, though, and enough Americans do not fear the price of Liberty and will pay whatever it takes. Support your local law enforcement and rule of law, and not the outlaw politicians.
I am very troubled by what I see happening in the U.S. and around the world. The assassination of the police officers in Dallas is but one of a long line of troubling incidents. I am troubled because there is a scenario that explains all these events. A scenario that “connects the dots”.
However, I hesitate to propose this scenario, in this blog, for fear that I will be labeled as a “paranoid, right-wing nut” for doing so. For the record, I regard myself as a moderate who is neither left-wing or right-wing in political outlook. I also hope that I am not paranoid.
In any event, I am going to list the scenario. Note that I do not insist that it is true. I merely propose it as a possible explanation.
Suppose that President Obama is not content to merely serve his country as President. Suppose he truly wants to transform America into his vision of a left-wing paradise by arranging a left-wing power seizure. Suppose he wants to elevate the executive branch of government to preeminence and lock it under left-wing control. To do it, he would need to orchestrate a series of crises (both internal and external) to justify the power seizure. So, he implements the Obama Power-Seizure Plan as follows:
Since a full blown war is “too much” of an external crisis, he selects international terrorism instead. This is arranged by destabilizing the middle-east (not a hard thing to do!). He helps overthrow governments in Libya and Egypt. Allows (by inaction) civil war to break out in Syria. Pulls U.S. troops too early out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The result is the rise of ISIS and a strong rise in international terrorism.
To make sure the U.S. is vulnerable to this terrorist threat, he hamstrings the FBI with “politically correct” restrictions that inhibit the performance of their jobs. He also weakens local police forces by providing tacit support to anti-police movements, like Black Lives Matter, so as to undercut police authority. He also supports lax border controls (allows guns to “walk” over the border in “fast and furious”) and lax immigration policies to allow some terrorists to “walk” into the U.S. As the recent Dallas incident shows, these policies now have the police under attack. The recent terrorist attacks, on U.S. soil and in Europe, are also a predictable result.
To create the internal crisis, he promotes racial strife and division. Easy to do since he is America’s “First Black President”. The BLM movement also aids him greatly in this effort. In addition, he has great influence over the main-stream media (which already has an inherent left-wing bias) which he uses to great effect. In effect, turning much of the media into his propaganda arm. This prevents a “free press” from performing their watch-dog duty as established under the 1st Amendment.
To foil the “Checks and Balance” system of divided government, he makes sure that the other branches of government are ineffective. He refuses to work with the legislative branch and, instead, promotes a divisive agenda that soon ties Congress up with bickering between the parties. He uses his control of the media to see that Congress gets the blame for this their rather than himself.
By his selection of justices, he sees to it that the Judicial Branch is equally divided.
Now that the external and internal threats are coming to a head, he can use them as an excuse to seize power. He has already done this to an extent and has begun to rule by “Executive Order”. We are also seeing a broad scale attack on all of our civil rights.
Our freedom of speech is being inhibited by “political correctness”. Many people won’t speak out for fear that they will be vilified, scorned, demoted or fired.
Our rights to privacy are under attack with massive spying and monitoring of our private commutations all of which is justified in the name of responding to the “security threat”. The Obama Administration is pressuring Apple, and other companies, to provide “back doors” into their devices and systems to allow even more intrusion.
Our “due process” rights are under attack. Again this is justified by the “security threat”. The government is now preparing secret lists of “enemies”. One can be placed on these lists without even knowing why and there are no methods to control it or get off them. They can already be used to restrict flying. They want to expand them to restrict 2nd Amendment rights.
I don’t even need to list in the numerous ways that the “security threats” are being used to restrict and infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms under the 2A. This subject has already been explored on this blog in detail.
Add all of this up and it points to a systematic attempt to elevate the executive branch of government to preeminence and to install a left-wing hegemony and seizure of power. A new Clinton administration will expand and build upon the foundation which Obama has built.
I hope I am wrong about all of this. If this scenario is true, it represents not only a violation of Obama’s Oath of Office but Treason to the U.S. as well. It also means that Obama’s true name may as well be Darth Sidious.
TXCOMT,
I have no doubt that I know your Dad, but I’m trying to pin it down in my mind. Are his initials “L.C.” ? If not, if you give me his initials, I know I will be able to match his face in my mind. If your Dad is who I think he is, he was one of the best supervisors I ever worked for.
Dennis, no, his initials were S.R.H. (he passed in ’85)…badge number in the early 2000s. He was one of Holloway’s Raiders in Tactical Unit A and spent the last 10 years as an investigator (no detectives, as you know) at Central…now, ironically, my alma mater’s law school!
Also, I looked at The Dallas Morning News clipping again; he was providing overwatch for Vice President Spiro Agnew, but no date is shown.
TXCOMT
@ NH Indi:
You seem to think that both sides are discussing a mere moot point, or issue of little consequence?
In fact Anti-Gunners are trying to destroy the American Constitution, and the Nation based upon it, which did just fine, for at least the first 200, of the 240 years, which America has existed!
While Pro-Gunners believing in God, Duty, Honor, and Country, are desperately trying to hang on to, and preserve, the America as envisioned by our countries Founding Fathers, and that made America into the World’s most advanced, and powerful, Nation!
@ TN_MAN:
Well, I completely, and totally, agree with you the events that both of us see coming down the pike, yet, I considered myself as a “Strict Constitutionalist” and will only support, and obey, those Laws, Rules, and Regulations which are clearly permitted by Government, under that Constitution!
Paul
This is the kind of trash that we can expect to be seeing from the main-stream media from now on. See this link:
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/9/12128686/vox-gun-image-survey-ban-firearms?ref=yfp
The idea seems to be that we should decide the limits of our Constitutional Rights by taking polls.
Say, why don’t we take a poll too? How many readers of this blog think that VOX deserves freedom of the press rights under the 1st Amendment?
Hold your hands up high now so that I can get an accurate count! 🙂
TN_MAN,
The scenario you propose reminds me of something Glenn Beck taught several years ago. He mentioned two college professors named “Cloward and Piven.” They believed that to break a system you simply need to overwhelm it. I think Glenn mentioned it in relation to welfare payments. In other words, get a lot of people on welfare, the payments will increase the budget so that the government will go bankrupt. I think that has already been achieved.
I believe this “Cloward and Piven” strategy was proposed way back in the 1960s. If not then, it would have been the 1970s.
If people are self-controlled, and can provide for themselves, then they only need a small government. People who are out-of-control and poor, need a larger government. The best way to grow government is to create chaos so people call for a savior.
I imagine the government like a lifeguard, who tosses a non-swimmer into the water, then jumps in and saves the non-swimmer. The lifeguard now gets to say, “Look at me, I’m a hero, I saved your life!”
Of course our domestic enemies use the ancient principle of “divide and conquer.” Black against white, left against right, male against female, young against old, rich against poor, tax payers against tax takers.
I’m really not too afraid of a small bunch of extremists. Even most of the BLM protestors behave pretty well. They were certainly well-behaved in Dallas on Thursday night. If a large portion of the American people somehow ran out of food however, then I believe they would turn into monsters, and prey upon each other. As long as there is plenty of food for everyone, I believe most people will not be a threat to me. Of course, I don’t live in a city, but I leave near one.
Nations rise and fall. God has blessed America for so long, I don’t see how those blessings can continue. We certainly don’t deserve to be blessed. I’m 53-years-old and not for one second of my life did I ever worry about food or clothing. In fact, I have to push food away from me. How long can the good times last?
Think about this; if we had 30% unemployment in this country, we would consider that a disaster. However, most of the countries in the world always have 30% unemployment, and some countries always have 50% unemployment. We are blessed.
Comments are closed.